Who Cares If Piracy Is 'Wrong' If Stopping It Is Impossible And Innovating Provides Better Solutions?

from the not-this-again dept

It appears that the same arguments that many of us have been fighting for many, many years are suddenly playing themselves out again in the National Review Online. It started with a really fantastic article by Reihan Salam and Patrick Ruffini arguing that legislating to deal with "piracy" doesn't work and is the wrong approach anyway, because innovating and providing better solutions simply works better. If you're a regular Techdirt reader, you won't be surprised by the Salam/Ruffini piece -- it hits on many of the key points we've raised. However, it is nicely packaged up in a single article that should be required reading for anyone trying to understand why fighting piracy through legislation is the wrong approach.

In response, Robert VerBruggen, an associate editor at the National Review decided to write a rebuttal that isn't so much a rebuttal at all. As Tim Lee rightly points out, the two sides appear to be arguing totally different things. Salam and Ruffini are pointing out that enforcement isn't working (and isn't workable), while also leading to collateral damage. But, at the same time, innovating and providing solutions that people want do seem to work -- and create new opportunities for content creators and consumers alike. VerBruggen, on the other hand, is pulling out the famed "but... but... piracy!" argument we've seen too often -- as if the fact that "piracy exists" suddenly makes all logic pointless. As Lee notes:

VerBruggen responds by insisting that piracy is wrong. He’s right, but this doesn’t get him as far as he thinks it does. This isn’t just an abstract exercise in moral philosophy. The government has limited resources, and a long list of problems to deal with. The question isn’t “should the government try to stop piracy,” it’s “how many resources should the government devote to combatting piracy as opposed to other problems.”

And VerBruggen never really grapples with this question. He seems to believe that the right amount of enforcement is more than we already have, but he doesn’t offer any principled basis for deciding how much more, or how to tell when we’ve passed the point of diminishing returns. Without such a principle, we’re just going to have this debate over and over again, as each new anti-piracy measure fails and Hollywood comes back for still more restrictions.

This is a key point, and I don't know if VerBruggen is just new to this debate and therefore trotting out silly, long-dead tropes because he doesn't know any better -- or if that's just the best the "other side" can do these days. Either way, I wanted to dig a bit deeper into a few of VerBruggen's really questionable claims.

When brick-and-mortar bookstores complain about the threat they face from Amazon.com, they are complaining that customers will leave them for a superior alternative; when Hollywood complains about piracy, they are complaining that customers have left them for an illegal alternative. They have stopped paying for Hollywood products yet are still consuming them. These are not even remotely similar situations — morally, legally, or economically.

VerBruggen says this as if "an illegal alternative" and "a superior alternative" are mutually exclusive. They're not. And that's the issue. History has shown, time and time again, that infringement is a way for consumers to express that they're not satisfied with the official versions and have found "a superior alternative." That the said alternative is "illegal" is an issue, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the best response is a legal one. Why VerBruggen makes these assumptions is unclear.

With this distinction in mind, one might find it rather odd for Salam and Ruffini to insist that the solution to piracy is “innovation” rather than law enforcement. By “innovation,” they mean primarily that Hollywood should make it easier and cheaper for customers to buy their content digitally, citing studies indicating that when digital content becomes readily available through legal channels, piracy goes down. But even assuming Hollywood can discourage piracy by cutting prices and offering its content in different ways, since when do we tell crime victims to appease their tormenters?

As far as I can tell, this is the craziest part of VerBruggen's argument. It is, effectively, "so what if everyone can be better off by innovating out of this mess, this is wrong wrong wrong!" As we've pointed out for years, if you have a solution where everyone is better off, there is no moral argument. It seems silly to be arguing what VerBruggen seems to be arguing, that it's more moral to have everyone worse off with no piracy, than to have everyone better off with some piracy. It just doesn't add up.

Moreover, in no other industry do we allow consumers to force prices down by taking products for free whenever they, personally, think the legal versions are too expensive or inconvenient. Any customer may refuse to buy a product that’s undesirable, or even organize a boycott — but then that customer needs to go without the product.

The problem here is easy to spot. It's in the word "take." That's not what's happening here. The truth is that, as in every other industry, consumers force down prices by finding "a superior alternative" as he suggested earlier. Taking implies something is directly taken from the creator and they no longer have it. That's simply not true.

Salam and Ruffini provide no justification for singling out industries that sell intellectual property — and little evidence that these industries’ disproportionately young, bratty, and entitled consumers are better equipped than the free market to decide what a “fair” price is for an album or movie that cost thousands or even millions of dollars to create and market.

I won't even bother discussing the fact that he appears to be calling the industry's customers, who they're supposed to be trying to win over, as "young, bratty and entitled," and just focusing on his bizarre definition of "free market." He seems to miss that this is the free market. Setting up a centralized government-granted set of artificial monopolies over non-rivalrous, non-excludable goods is a price restriction on a free market. A "fair price" is what the actual market sets -- and that means the market of everyone, not just the customers that VerBruggen likes.

For starters, while making content widely available for low prices does seem to reduce piracy, it hardly eliminates it.

Er. Enforcement and new laws every two years has hardly eliminated it either -- in fact, it's been shown to increase the rate of piracy. So, I'm at a complete loss here. If VerBruggen is arguing that the only proper solution is the one that "eliminates" infringement, well, then he's living in a fantasy land, because no such solution exists. The argument that Ruffini and Salam made (which is backed up with pretty significant evidence) is that innovating and providing "a superior alternative" does a better job to reduce piracy than enforcement (which doesn't appear to work at all beyond an initial hit until people scramble and find alternatives). Again, we're back to VerBruggen basing his entire argument on "piracy is wrong wrong wrong," without taking into account what his preferred solution actually does compared to Salam and Ruffini's alternative.

Spotify’s payment formulas are not public, but various leaks indicate that on average, artists and labels are paid around one-third of one cent every time a user listens to (“streams”) a song. By way of comparison, artists and labels make 70 cents when a song is purchased for 99 cents from iTunes. Thus, a user has to listen to a song on Spotify more than 200 times before earning ad revenue for the artist and label that’s equivalent to a sale.

Comparing a Spotify play to an iTunes purchase is meaningless, because they're not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. I mean, why not compare Spotify to radio? In some ways, that may be more comparable. In the US, musicians get paid a big fat nothing for radio plays. Yet, somehow, it's been pretty damn important for artists to get on radio. Because it helps them make money elsewhere. Looking at Spotify in isolation misses the point... but VerBruggen does that again and again:

But piracy does “put pressure on profit margins,” as Salam delicately put it on National Review Online recently. By one estimate, per capita, inflation-adjusted spending on recorded music has fallen 64 percent since its peak in the late 1990s, and is lower today than at any time since at least 1973, despite the fact that every other person you pass on the street is wearing earbuds.

Again, he's looking at one small aspect of the music business in isolation: how much is spent on recorded music. But he leaves out every other aspect of the music business -- including things like live -- which has grown at an incredible rate over the same time. More importantly, he leaves out that artists earn a larger chunk of revenue from live than they do from recorded music sales -- most of which go to the labels, not the artists. Why focus on that anyway? It's like complaining that automobiles are terrible for transportation because fewer buggy whips are selling. When you have dumb metrics, you're going to get silly results.

The numbers change little when one uses total rather than per capita revenue, and home-video sales are falling as well.

Oh come on. Home video wouldn't even exist if Hollywood had its way and banned the VCR 30 years ago, so I'm sorry if I find complaints about the home video market shrinking as evidence of a problem. As we saw with the VCR, new markets develop, and they seem to develop against Hollywood's own wishes -- and then become a huge revenue driver for Hollywood. The best solution, if we look historically, is to get Hollywood out of the way and just let those new models develop to save Hollywood from itself.

That in itself should be troubling to anyone who thinks the profit motive matters — with less profit, presumably, will come less creative output.

Thing is, we don't need to "presume" anything. We have data. And the data shows that more music is being created and released and monetized than ever before. And the data shows that more films are being created and released and monetized than ever before. You can presume all you want until the cows come home, but if reality says you're wrong, it's difficult to take those presumptions seriously.

As commentator Eduardo Porter noted in the New York Times, while the total number of music-album releases rose between 2005 and 2010, releases of albums that sold at least 1,000 copies — a rather low standard by which to judge whether an artist is making a significant contribution to the world of recorded music — declined about 40 percent. Of course, like Salam and Ruffini’s, Porter’s data are highly debatable — he relies on the Nielsen sales database, which excludes some independent releases and does not count sales of single songs.

It doesn't just exclude "some" independent releases. It excludes tens of thousands (potentially hundreds of thousands) of independent releases. If you just look at TuneCore and CDBaby alone, you'd realize how silly relying on SoundScan is as a proxy. And, once again, this is only looking at "recorded music" sales in isolation. The fact that fewer albums sold 1,000 copies ignores the massive explosion of new music (which just paragraphs earlier, VerBruggen "presumed" was impossible), meaning that there's a ton more competition. Furthermore, it ignores that recorded music is not the main way that many artists monetize these days, and looking at it in isolation is pretty pointless. Finally, many of those artists who sold less than 1000 albums would have made a big fat $0 under the old system, because no major label would have bothered with them and they wouldn't have had any other outlet. Aren't we all (including, most importantly, the musicians) better off in a world where a whole bunch of artists get to make something rather than nothing? But, again, the "but... but... piracy!" argument blinds VerBruggen to this reality.

The finer points of entertainment economics aside, if widespread and increasingly popular illegal behavior is costing American companies business, and possibly reducing artists’ creative output, it is first and foremost a law-enforcement problem, not an “innovation” problem. It is entirely reasonable for Hollywood to petition the government for better anti-piracy efforts, even if the industry has lobbied for bad legislation in the past.

Almost nothing in this paragraph is supported by... anything. If law enforcement doesn't work, how is this possibly a law enforcement problem? This is yet another example of someone trying to be right rather than realistic. It's a recipe for disaster, but it's the same recipe that the legacy entertainment industry has been cooking up for decades to no effect. Who would ever double down on that strategy?

I simply cannot fathom why one of those scenarios is illegal. I know that the law has been bought and paid for, but in the ethical minds of the populace, there is no moral difference between watching a freely broadcast show live, or downloading said show through another means.

Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

Yes, but they don't have the right to get paid for something no one wants. Remember, research has shown repeatedly that the majority of those infringements are from people that are either a) fans (and buy plenty of other things), or b) people that would never have given you a dollar in the first place.

What you have described is artificial scarcity and people HATE it. You can say its infringement all you want, but that won't change people's behavior.I personally go out of my way NOT to send money towards organizations that create artificial scarcity.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

and whether you have the right or not matters not at all as you can get a copy of it for free if you want to with no loss to the owner.
Big difference between potential sales actual loss.

The publishers seem to need the old Dr Phil back.
"You want more and more laws to prevent piracy, even though they can't and don't work because dammit you are right and the pirates are wrong. How's that working out for you?"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

Except clearly almost everyone doesn't want what's being sold. They clearly want the show, but maybe they don't want the $20 DVD and associated drive. If only there was some kind of system in place for people to buy and watch something legally from the comfort of their home, but alas the Internet is only good for pirates and the shows that are old or obscure enough that none of the labels has bothered to take them off Netflix.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

Even using your logic if Hollywood made it easier for people, all potential PAYING customers, to find and download at a reasonable price Hollywood would make a killing.

If you remember back far enough it took some time before video stores found the magic balance between rental prices and sales before they took off. In my area it was largely about $3 a day, blockbuster or not. Hollywood, or at least the video stores, found out quickly that encoding the tapes or DVDs so they couldn't be copied as broken as fast as they did it so artificial shortages never really occurred.

But people tolerated waiting till the movie they wanted came back in and they could rent it then.

Result. Lower in store prices. But the stores did better than survive and a few specialty places still do. Because Hollwood could sell more videos to the stores they made more too.

All on a technology that shortly before they had wanted banned.

The same thing would work on the web where there is no such thing as scarcity being that it's all bits and bytes. The market will settle on its own price, maybe not what Hollywood wants or thinks it's entitled to but money that will flow back to them without draconian, unenforceable laws.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

You are trying to argue that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a business model of "Hey, I have something amazing in this box. Pay me $20 and I'll let you see it. In three months, you can pay me $30 and I'll let you see it whenever you want. According to my terms, of course. But I'll be generous. In about a century, I'll let everyone see it for free."

Needless to say, people started to tell each other what was in the box. Someone even managed to take a picture of the thing in the box. Lots of people were still willing to pay to see the thing in the box. Many were willing to pay later to see it whenever they wanted. But you got angry that people knew what was in the box without paying you. You argue that, while the thing in the box is epically amazing and everyone should pay you to see it, if someone knows what's in the box, they'd never pay you to see it. So you think it's justified to throw people in jail if they talk about what's in the box.

On the other hand, we're trying to argue that, if you really have something amazing in the box, people will want to pay you to see it. Some people will want to pay you simply because they trust you cna find other cool things to put in boxes. We're just arguing that keeping it hidden in the box isn't necessary to your success, and is actively hurting your business. Furthermore, we're getting really annoyed that you're bribing our leaders to make it so that no one can talk about what's in the box.

And, it hasn't gotten there yet, but it's not unreasonable to imagine that people might eventually get fed up and institute mob justice. They'll beat you up and take your thing. And, in the long run, that will be bad for everyone, as it upends the social order. But we have spring-loaded scales, and you keep pushing your thumb down on your end of the scales. We're suggesting you ease up before you put your eye out.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

Actually it is "see what is in the box for $20 today, or wait 3 months and it's $10, and a month later $5, and six months later it will only cost your attention to broadcast TV, and pretty much after step 3 it's a $1 redbox rental or something you can stick on your netflix list for 30 cents a day or so.

Too bad that what everyone seems to want is the "pennies a day" option, and are unwilling to allow the box owner to make their money with anyone willing to pay $20.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

Get rich plan for copyright maximalists:
1. Buy copyright from content creator.
2. Gain money from government issued monopoly.
2. Use money to lobby government for extended/ more strict control of monopoly.
3. ???
4. profit
5. go back to step step two.

We don't mind rights holders getting compensation, we just don't like rights holders who make profit off doing nothing more than owning the copyright of others and forcing stricter laws on others.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

That's were your wrong, while they don't directly receive money from piracy, they receive publicity which leads to higher profits in the long run. And yes piracy increases publicity of said pirated material, this is an immutable fact, to what extent is another thing all together though. And yes publicity does increase sales, this is also true in most cases, to argue against that is silly. Your only response can be the moral argument against piracy, but that's not what I'm arguing. So, whether or not that is true, it does not make my argument any less true.

so very true

so, so true, many shows I now watch on tv or pay to watch(netflix and the like) i never would have seen if it wasnt for torrenting random shows that where popular.

one big one is big bang theory, never would have bothered with it as the shows adverts sucked, but i love the show now...

never would have watched it on their site because i hate the ads before shows, in shows and at the end on steams.....(could deal with 1-2 short breaks in the show but they always do more then that or long annoying ones...)

Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

But if you DVR the show when it originally aired, you can watch it again however many times you like. So what's the difference between using BT to download a show you might have missed DVRing and DVRing that show when it originally aired?

Having a show air on publicly accessible channels should be permission enough on the part of the distributor for consumers to time shift or format shift content they don't pay for because they don't pay for it when it publicly airs anyway.

Watching show on broadcast tv == I don't pay for the content (and I don't watch the commercials)
DVRing the show and watching it later == I don't pay for the content
Watching the show on Hulu == I don't pay for the content (and I don't watch the commercials)
Torrenting the show == I don't pay for the content

So why is not paying for the content in one scenario legal or ethical and not paying for the content in another scenario illegal or unethical?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

remember that the MPAA threw a big fuss over DVRing as well, torrenting is just the new easier way to DVR, just as DVRing was the new easier way to record something on a VCR, which the MPAA also threw a hissy fit over!

Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

The EFF proposals are full of it, sorry.

How did the show get on the torrents to start with? The people sharing it don't have permission to distribute. So there you go, the entire argument dies. If they cannot legally post it, you cannot legally download it.

Fair use doesn't mean "forget copyright". EFF stopped being a legal resource and have become a lobby group. It's a bad sign, and another indication that Google has a grip.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

No, EFF isn't suppose to be a lobby group, they are suppose to be a "legal help" group, fighting cases in court. Only since Google started shipping people and money over (through various methods) have they become a lobby group.

The **AA groups are very specifically industry groups that including a lobbying section. They don't hide that. Google, well... you can draw your own conclusions (if you can follow the money through charitable foundations and such).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

Why is the EFF "not supposed to lobby", is lobbying illigal? Lobbying itself is a GOOD thing! Lobbying is another form of connection between the government and the constituents. Anyone can lobby, but sometimes it helps to join together as a group to more effectively make your voice heard! Yes corruption is a problem, but just because a group comes together to support what they believe is right does not mean they are automatically right or wrong. It's better to look what they are actually lobbying for rather than who they are supported by to determine that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

your really need to read the copyright act

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright

fair use is written as a blanket immunity clause by definition that exactly what it means.

that why it was legal to loan your friend a copy of knight rider that he failed to tape because the power went out.

If time shifting didn't give you blanket immunity, universal could have demanded that vcr recorded a flag that prevented the tape from playing in any OTHER VCR.

Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

I don't think that is entirely true. After all, advertisers don't pay for commercials during a show based on an exact audience size, they pay based on an estimated audience size. If the t.v. network included some piracy in its estimates then the advertisers would technically cover the cost.

Of course, the pirated copy may not contain the commercials but then again you can skip them on DVR and advertisers don't seem to mind that.

Also, if they want money, why don't they make the show available online with the commercials?

Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

"I simply cannot fathom why one of those scenarios is illegal."

If you cannot understand that basic idea, it's pretty hard to explain anything to you. I mean, this is a pretty obvious concept.

The "freely broadcast show" isn't freely broadcast. You pay for the show with your attention (or lack of it) to the commercials. When you download the torrent, remarkably someone has removed the commercials for you, making it impossible for the content producers to get paid. Even if they leave the commercials in, there is no way to measure the viewership, and as such, your view doesn't change the ad rates for the show.

It isn't even an ethical issue, only one of logic, which you seem not to have (odd for a computer guy).

Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

The revenue associated with current forms of legitimate free media are only loosely associated with the viewers. Those of us in the audience realize what bullsh*t the Nielson ratings are along with all of the associated billing rates for ad time.

It's just that the industry hasn't quite caught up yet. Perhaps they don't want to hear the ugly truth that it's all just a big sham.

When brick-and-mortar bookstores complain about the threat they face from Amazon.com, they are complaining that customers will leave them for a superior alternative

VerBruggen says this as if "an illegal alternative" and "a superior alternative" are mutually exclusive.
Exactly, and the reason Amazon is making money is because they innovated and provided a good/usable/reasonable user experience. I use Amazon for books because of that, despite the illegal 'superior' alternative of torrents for books. Where's hollywood's superior alternative?

Re: Where's hollywood's superior alternative?

Re: Re: Where's hollywood's superior alternative?

As the Arab spring showed many middle east leaders, domination of a population and control are mere illusion. In a world of instant communications you have memes spreading in a way that brings things to a boil very quickly. It no longer takes years for resentment to build to the breaking point. That and the fuse is far easier to light.

Good luck to them in their quest for world domination, they do not realize they have already lost.

Re: Re: Superioso!

Re: Re: Re: Superioso!

If they came up with one I do not see many people using it. They would constantly change the rules, reduce the content available and generally screw things up. A couple more Hulu's and they will loose a second generation of people to infringement.

Re: Re:

Re:

Amazon is a superior environment for me to shop in. I am a prime member, and the only beef I have with amazon is their dismal protection on their movies(which I will not buy them because of this), otherwise I am a loyal amazon customer(I still rent movies through my roku with them), and am very happy with the shopping ecosystem I play in for digital items, books, and electronics. I pay more for some items because I would rather do business with a company that makes my experiences easy and enjoyable.

This will be true for me

Er. Enforcement and new laws every two years has hardly eliminated it either -- in fact, it's been shown to increase the rate of piracy.

I have stated here multiple times I do not pirate anything. As of right now, pro-IP laws haven't cost me any money. Well they probably have in services that never happened or inflated prices due to the law so they may have deprived me of getting something I didn't already have. But anyway, so far I am not out cash. As soon as these draconian laws cost me money or deprive me of something I already have, I will become the worlds greatest pirate. At that point the gloves will come off.

Re: This will be true for me

Question: Do you pay taxes to the US government? If you answer yes then the laws are already costing you money (albeit indirectly) due to US enforcement of the IP laws, US legislators spending time on the laws, US payed negotiators for ACTA.

Re:

Re:

Yes, you're right. Making an unauthorised copy of a music file is exactly like murdering someone. I don't know why I didn't realise that before.
I find your ideas fascinating. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:

I'm not against taking action to prevent my murder beyond what the law provides. For example, I regularly avoid walking through bad neighborhoods with hundred dollar bills taped to my clothes while shouting racial slurs, and anyone who gets stabbed doing such a thing is a person I have no sympathy for. I also look both ways before crossing the street, despite the fact that it's illegal to run someone over. If you jump in front of a truck you have no right to complain if it hits you, no matter how wrong running someone over is. The point of this is that companies can take actions to reduce piracy without running to the cops, like looking both ways before crossing the street or avoiding high-crime areas.

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

As I understand, the legal results of downloading is actually worse that murder. Kind of says it all doesn't it?
The Pro IP bunch has already bought and paid for some of the harshest laws in existence.

Re: Re:

They made it legal again....

But only that is because the government needed some cash and making it legal with bring in the dough.

For Hollywood, if they would just make it that we can DL our shows and movies for a fee(which will include tax, I'm sure), it would bring them more cash than DVD and Blu-Ray sales, making those two obsolete.

Too bad that everyone rich and old in Hollywood is a tech ignoramus and cannot use something more advance than a calculator. I will bet that even Hollywood CEO's don't even know how to use a smartphone without their children teaching them. LOL.

And they cannot comprehend how much they can cut on labor cost and other fees if they just distributed data over the internet...

Re:

I'll leave aside your asinine analogy as others have already pointed that out and just say that you forgot the other part concerning innovating. So let's run with your analogy: Who cares if murder is wrong if stopping it is impossible and innovating provides better solutions?

For example, what if, rather than just increasing penalties for murder and hiring more law enforcers, we hired more counselors and arbitrators to provide counseling and arbitration free of charge to angry people. Let's say we try this and find that it reduces the murder rate more than increasing penalties and detectives does. Would you still say stand up on your soapbox and shout that penalties need to be stiffer and more detectives need to be hired?

What if having job location services, education opportunities, and access to medical and mental health care were to reduce violent crime (including murders) more than banning guns would? Would you still petition for stricter gun control laws?

This can be applied anywhere. What if lowering the tax rate and simplifying the tax code were to reduce tax fraud and raise revenues? Would you be asking for more IRS workers to conduct more tax audits? What if building sidewalks overpasses or underground streets in school zones reduced car accidents? Would you still be advocating 15mph speed zones? What if legalizing drugs and providing addiction recovery help and other self help systems for drug addicts reduced the amount of drug users and/or drug related crime? Would you still be crying for longer jail terms?

What if Hollywood provided a service that was better than the Pirate Bay and that reduced infringement and brought in revenue? Would you still be asking for increased fines for infringement? Oh wait, you are. Never mind, I guess you don't care about results, you only care about what you think is "right".

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Reject, you almost got it right... but all of your analogies suffer in major ways, mostly in ignoring reality.

Building specialized streets for your school zones would be prohibitively expensive, and maintaining them (and making them safe from crime) would be equally expensive. As a society, we have to balance lives saved with money spent, we cannot afford to spend a near infinite amount of money to save a few lives, even if they are children. So we come up with a cost effective way of acheiving almost the same results, with 15mph speed limits, speed bumps, and enforcement activity by police and key times.

Murder is another great example. While it would be nice to catch up with every murder before they commit the act, and work to diffuse their anger or desire to kill, reality says that is almost impossible. It's not a workable solution. The only solution that society has found so far is to make a punishment for murder so high, and almost everyone who might commit a murder thinks twice before doing it.

Simplifying the tax code is a nice idea, and one that seems pretty meaningful. However, you would still need to enforce it, so the number of audits likely would not change. Even if the code is "send 10% of your income", some people will still try to cheat.

"What if Hollywood provided a service that was better than the Pirate Bay and that reduced infringement and brought in revenue? "

There is no better service than TPB. All the content you want, free, without restriction, and delivered while you sleep. The movie industry cannot compete against it's own quality product given away for free. It's nutty to even consider it.

Mostly, you seem to be trying to justify piracy. Leave that to Glyn, he is at least amusing while he tries.

Re: Re: Re:

You missed the point in every case. I'm not advocating underground streets everywhere there are school zones, only that maybe we ought to look at different ways to reduce problems, and if those different ways are better in whatever metric[s] you are concerned with, then even if it doesn't eliminate the problem, you are better off.

The murder example is an excellent example. The point isn't that any of the ideas I suggested are the true solvers, but that perhaps ratcheting up the penalty isn't the only solver or even an effective solver. For example, childhood exposure to lead has been linked to violent crime. If eliminating childhood lead exposure reduces murder rates more than increasing penalties does, then why are you increasing penalties rather than advocating reduced lead exposure?

Simplifying the tax code is a nice idea, and I'm not advocating not enforcing it (simplified or not). What I was saying is that if simplifying it reduced tax fraud and brought in more revenue than simply increasing audits, then why would you ask to simply increase audits (which does have a cost to it)?

If you think there isn't a better service than the Pirate Bay, then you need to quit whatever business type job you're currently doing. If you think that people wouldn't pay the studios directly for the exact same service that the Pirate Bay provides (let alone an improved one), then you aren't paying attention. If you can't find even one small way to improve upon the the Pirate Bay's model, then you really aren't qualified to make business decisions.

Re:

Re:

I think the AC is confusing pirating with something that actually causes harm... Just to clarify when we talk about pirates on techdirt, we're are talking about people how copy information through illegal means (illegal does not always equate to amoral). We do not mean pirates as in those who pillage, plunder, rape and kill.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re:

A quick googling for statistics indicates 16,799 homicides in the US alone. We'll doctor the numbers, making this all illegitimate, by rounding that up to 16,800.

EPA lists value of a statistical life as $6.9 million. On the authority of Josef Stalin, a thousand deaths is a statistic, so this is a valid number.

16,800 * $6,900,000 = $115,920,000,000 lost to homicide, in the US alone. Not nearly as bad as the $700 trillion lost to piracy, and I did use doctored numbers, but I'm not sure you want to dismiss all the murders in the US as a "rounding error."

Murder is, therefore, a significant problem. And it's well established that murder is a severe violation of many rights. Worth noting that copyright is not harmed by murder - at least, not nearly severe as other rights.

Let's take some of the approaches to stem piracy and apply them to murder:

All public spaces, and some private spaces, should log everyone who visits them, retain the data for several years, and provide logs upon request to law enforcement.

If someone is accused of murder three times, they are incarcerated indefinitely. There are no repurcussions for accusations of murder.

Wal-Mart is ubiquitous, with millions of customers. 95% of the products sold at Wal-Mart can be used for homicide. We have confirmed instances of murders with items purchased at Wal-Mart. Wal-mart is also relatively indiscriminate in providing sharp knives and guns to patrons for purchase. Clearly, we must shut down the Walton conspiracy, sieze all their assets, and arrest the ringleaders. This will hopefully serve as an example for Target and smaller illegal outfits, dedicated to facilitating murder.

Closest thing to length of copyright would be statute of limitations. Any murderer can be prosecuted for up to 75 years after the murder, 90 years if the victim was employed.

No real counterpart to DRM, unless you want to make sharpening butter knives and safety scissors a crime. May as well.

I imagine we could continue like this for some time. I vote we just pretend this whole thing never happened. Better than you having to concede that I may have a point, after all.

"Who Cares If Piracy Is 'Wrong' If Stopping It Is Impossible And Innovating Provides Better Solutions?"

Stopping it isn't the goal, slowing it down is the goal. You cannot stop piracy any more than you can stop drug use, but you can make it hell for the casual user.

The "better solutions" still all suck, trading billion dollar industries for million dollar ideas. Sort of like telling Bill Gates that Microsoft should give away windows, because there is a huge market in selling microsoft t-shirts to "fans".

Sorry, but you cannot make your opinion true by repeating it over and over again in different ways Mike. Where's the beef? Where's the actual business models that are financially better than the current ones?

Re:

And why are the *AA's billion dollar industries? Because they exlpoit the artists/content creators. How many artists have been able to make money selling their content using new business models and avoiding the *AA's? You may lose billion dollar industries, but you gain many many many more smaller independents

Re: Re:

When I see money concentrated at obscene levels like billionaires or usurious corporate dividends, I usually think to myself that most likely someone was a huge bastard and a bunch of folks got screwed over royally.

Re: Realism

"Sorry, but you cannot make your opinion true by repeating it over and over again in different ways Mike. Where's the beef? Where's the actual business models that are financially better than the current ones?"

Obviously you've not been paying attention to the lobbying tactics employed for the last 50 years in which quoting a dozen "scientific reports" which are all sourced from a single nonsense debunked "scientific report" makes something true.

Or, to put it in the common vernacular: saying it enough times makes it true--in DC.

Re: Re:

No, did I say the fight against piracy should be modeled after the war on drugs? All I said is that they similar goals, which is to limit the availability of the illegal product to the casual user, to drive it's use underground, and to make it less of a blight on society.

It's a question of a tipping point, where piracy is no longer the first choice for a majority of users... then things change.

Re: Re: Re:

if your goal is to 'limit the availability of infringing (FTFY) product to the casual user', as in create a smaller percentage of infringing sources compared to legitimate product, then the solution to your dilemma is simple.

First, you create more legitimate sources, and instead of bribing politicians for new laws, why not use that money to build a site that allows end users to access every movie/tv series/documentary available for $1.00USD/ea. It doesn't have to be fancy, just look at TPB, it's pretty straight forward, search, download, watch.

And if all these infringing sources are making millions off of the advertising, then why not jump on that bandwagon by placing ads on the site you build, AND charge $1.00USD/movie. Think of the billions you would make!

Re: Re: Re:

"to limit the availability of the illegal product to the casual user, to drive it's use underground, and to make it less of a blight on society."

All this is beyond dumb.

"Limit the availability of the illegal product to the casual user."

Hmm, provide MORE legal alternatives. WORLDWIDE. As studies and reports have shown, things like Spotify and Netflix and what have you are GREAT at reducing piracy. In the markets they are made available in. Elsewhere, because of restrictions placed on people with outdated thinking, like yourself, there are no such legal alternatives. Saying "do without" or "too fucking bad" just doesn't cut it in today's world. Not when someone can provide exactly what the people want, even if it is illegal to do so.

The casual user would rapidly and gladly switch from casual copyright infringing activities to PAYING YOU for a legal and easy to access alternative.

That's the long and short of it. Wagging your finger and telling people that the way you're doing business has worked and will be the only way you ever plan on doing business ALSO WILL NOT CUT IT. They don't care. That's your problem, not theirs.

"To drive it's use underground."

Ah, you're one of those types. So rather than acknowledge and work to improve the problem where such a situation arises, you'd rather go with the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" approach. I see. Rather short sighted and disturbingly problematic, but that's your prerogative.

I guess, since you have been known to make bad analogies, I'm allowed to make a somewhat fitting one in turn. Think of "file sharing" like "child porn". It's a bad example, but let's just think of it like that. Would you rather the "kids" (movies/music/software/etc) keep on being "exploited" (downloaded) as long as it's happening "underground" (non-known of torrent sites, dark nets, literal peer to peer transfer of usb drives and what have you) where you can't see/hear/know of it? Or would rather acknowledge the problem (lack of service and inability, or flat out refusal, to meet consumer demand) and work to find a solution that is beneficial to all parties (the consumers and the artists, I'll even allow you to have the gatekeepers/middlemen... for this example)?

"And to make it less of a blight on society."

I love that you compared the goal of fighting piracy to the war on drugs, particularly after also adding that sentence. Why? For obvious reasons.

Make it less of a blight on society. Ah yes. So your comparison is to make it EVEN MORE of a blight on society. What did the war on drugs do? Severely criminalize and punish even casual use to the point where a VERY large majority of people in prison are there for minor drug offenses. Thus forcing those of us who aren't drug-users or criminals to support them through taxes and a plethora of other methods. I.e. MADE IT MORE OF A GODDAMN BLIGHT ON SOCIETY. Then, let's add in the fact, that you want to extend copyright lengths, thus denying SOCIETY the right to have your products enter the public domain. Which is the reason copyright, a privilege, was even granted in the first place. It was done so that after a LIMITED time the public/society would benefit.

But, in addition to screwing the public in such a manner, your kind also thinks it's okay to make illegal the act of transferring the media you sell to us (except of course, it's ONLY "licensed", when convenient to you) to our own devices. So we have to have advocates lobby to have DMCA exemptions granted on our behalf.

But yes, you want to create less of a blight on society. [rolls eyes] Excuse me if I don't just blindly accept/believe such mindless, not actually thought out dribble.

Re: Re: ---

Re:

If the billion dollar businesses can stay billion dollar businesses then obviously there's no reason to change. But if the choice is between million dollar businesses and being driven bankrupt by a pair of Swedes with some server space, then you'd be an idiot to turn down the million dollar business.

Re: Re: Re:

Considering that in my relatively remote neck of the woods, there's not a night that goes by where the bars and clubs and restaurants don't feature live music, that not a week goes by without a local artist recording his/her tracks at one of several pro (not hollywood pro, but not home studio) studios in the area, and....

Well, what would we really lose out on if the billionaires went belly up? Would talent somehow disappear? 50-60 years ago...maybe. 2012 and beyond, not a chance!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If your business model is entirely based on excluding others from the market you deserve to fail.

If your entire business model depends on government granted monopolies you deserve to fail.

If your entire business model threatens the freedoms and rights of the rest of society eventually society will come after you just like the commons revolted and killed every noblemen and priest they could find in the 1600's, one can only hope that we have evolved past that and that people do it orderly this time by making their own laws and repudiating the ones they don't like, they got the power after all.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Explain why people need a monopoly to make money and have a business plan?

Restaurants don't have a monopoly on the dishes they serve and still McDonalds is multi billion dollar company it is not?

Red Hat is going to be the first billion dollar open source company and everybody can copy them.

Bottle water is a multi billion dollar operation and yet anyone wanting some water can get it directly from the tap since is the same water used in the bottled one.

None of those business plans involve being granted a government enforced monopoly, none of those business plans involve excluding others from the market, but somehow you think it is ok for the entertainment industry to have a monopoly when they don't need it.

That monopoly is hazardous to democracy, encourages abuse and corruption why should it be granted to anyone really?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

But their ARE more business models, you just seem to think that Hollywood's version is the only kind of business model that matters, and that everyone here is arguing for no new business model at all, and just pirate everything. Piracy is not the new model we argue for, piracy is the symptom of Hollywood's failing one.

Re:

You cannot really slow piracy down without making it hell for EVERYONE including those who buy the products. For example, I went and figured I would be good and install Linux instead of a pirated OS. So I install Linux on my PC and I get in the mood for a movie so I drop in my purchased BluRay.

What do I find? Even though I paid for all this equipment and bought the bluray I cant play it because the stupid DRM. So I set out looking for the software needed to play it. Turns out the EASY way to play a bluray in Linux is to RIP THE MOVIE to the hard drive.

So here it is their attempt to enforce their copyright made it so that it is EASIER to COPY than to PLAY their movie. This is one of the major causes of piracy. It is EASIER to pirate things than to use PURCHASED products.

Re:

You cannot stop piracy any more than you can stop drug use, but you can make it hell for the casual user.

Interesting parallel. Let's see, what has the "war on (some) drugs" given us? [quickly googles it] Oh, right, I see now.
Thank you for providing one of the strongest arguments I've ever seen against fighting unauthorised copying.

Re: Re:

They just need to put a program in the school system teaching the evils of piracy. You know, kind of like the DARE program they have for drugs. DARE was wonderful, all the kids that didn't know anything about drugs were suddenly told about all these wonderful things along with detailed information on how to use the different drugs. It worked great.

(worked so well that I when I visited a school wearing a DARE shirt I had all the kids asking me for drugs.)

Re: Re:

Some civilized countries have figured out that treating drug users as criminals is not the way to go. Treating drug users as criminal only leads them to become worse criminals in the future.

Those countries would rather treat drug users as people who are sick and that need help, and provide them with the means to treat themselves - for free.

They figure that it is way better to have a ton of pot-heads doing their thing and not bothering anyone (the same way you have alcoholics or smokers), than have an ever increasing amount of "prison-trained" drug dealers and gang members in the streets.

Also, the detox programs will occasionally "rescue" a pot-head and turn him into a productive member of society. It's a win-win scenario.

Re:

"The 'better solutions' still all suck, trading billion dollar industries for million dollar ideas. Sort of like telling Bill Gates that Microsoft should give away windows, because there is a huge market in selling microsoft t-shirts to 'fans'."

So you've never heard of Redhat or Linux. And guess what? Microsoft has heard of them both and isn't betting the farm on it's OS business. What about OpenOffice, ever heard of that? Unlike you, Microsoft actually understands the market that it's in and the free versions that competitors offer, and has been looking more into leveraging its presence on the web for years.

To answer your last question, there is no standard business model that matches the old one in recorded music and there won't be. The technology changed and there isn't a demand for CDs. What the industry fails to recognize is the psychology of radio and TV. We the consumers have been used to those things for free for A LONG time and we don't see much difference on between radio/TV and the web when it comes to consuming media. So why not try that? Theres a business model, sell ads with your content. It's been working for TV and Radio for decades.

Re: Re:

Gods, don't use radio as an example.
The record labels have lived the dream of radio for decades now.
Airplay boosts sales, so much so that it is worth it for record labels to pay radio stations to play their music, but instead they actually get paid for it and it is illegal for them to pay radio stations to play it. Bazinga!
On top of that, licensing organisations get to go around to people listening to the music that the radio stations have paid the labels to play (boosting their sales and profits) and gain a 3rd and 4th time in doing so.

If the record labels try using the web the same way, they'll be even deader in 10 years than they are on track to be right now with their reactionary backward looking policies.

Re:

The "better solutions" still all suck, trading billion dollar industries for million dollar ideas.

Except according to all the figures it seems that this is not what's happening at all. It looks more like a small handful of billion dollar companies that are a part of the industry are being traded for an industry made up of an increasing number of million-dollar companies and smaller that total an industry of more billions that it was before.

Sorry, but you cannot make your opinion true by repeating it over and over again in different ways Mike. Where's the beef? Where's the actual business models that are financially better than the current ones?

Well if you add "used to be" to the end of that sentence the answer is probably none. It's probably not possible to make the same amount of monopoly rent when the pie is shared between ever increasing amounts of people. That's not "piracy", that's genuine competition in a free-market that's been enabled by a paradigm shift of technology.

Re:

Actually, Bill Gates said this about Piracy...

"If they're going to steal it, let 'em steal it, I just want them to steal ours, since I know that means when they can and do eventually buy it, they'll be fans of our stuff and use it over other products."

Re:

How about Netflix and Hulu? Or Spotify? Or Youtube, or MegaUpload, or Louis C.K. thing, or Amazon(I mention Amazon because it's an alternative for many college students wishing to buy textbooks cheaper and not pirate them), or Pandora, or turntable.fm?

I could go on... but I must note the one thing holding many of these new models back is crazy legislation that makes no sense from Hollywood and the MPAA/RIAA

Re:

Netflix. Steam. Itunes. Hulu. Napster. All successful businesses that offer a far greater degree of convenience. You think the movie industry somehow has an entitlement to billion dollar profits? It doesn't. It's going to have to settle for a lower expenditure, lower profit model just like any other firm in any other industry has to do to keep up with the times.

When a high grossing movie like El Mariachi can be made on a budget of $7000, I have absolutely no sympathy for Hollywood when they stuff their movies to the brim with CGI/3D at great cost whilst employing banal cookie cuter writing and then wonder why they can't make a profit equal to their expenditure.

Music industries are even worse, because most of the cost of a CD comes from the label's desire to make a disproportionate return on sales. If you eliminate the CD medium and offer a straight download fee of, say 0.99$(like iTunes), you'll simultaneously eliminate the cost of the CD medium for the distributor and make the product much easier to procure legally. The industry will spend sums to the tune of $1000000 on making a single pop song. You can make an entire CD for less than a 20th of that amount, and that's WITH advertising, distribution, and licensing. Once again, pitching an overpriced product to a saturated market is a recipe for disaster, and once again the RIAA is dooming itself by running its high cost model in an industry that is moving towards low cost.

As for Steam, I shouldn't have to convince you of its success. It's making billions of dollars and indie devs are popping up like wildfire on it. More and more major companies are moving their PC ports to it, and the latest Bethesda release successfully used it as an alternative to DRM.

So there are plenty of ways that the existing industries can improve their model to adapt to the market. You have to be grievously misinformed to honestly think that art should optimally be produced by outdated billion dollar conglomerates that would charge people by the minute for sunlight if they could.

Re: Re: Re: Hm...

Re: Hm...

Usually I agree with Mike with the whole article, but this AC DID provide evidence to the contrary despite the profanities.

For that particular claim, I'm going to have to go with the AC. Unless there's other citations and evidence to contradict the rest of the article, I'm still agreeing with the rest.

Those are publishing royalties that go to the songwriters. In some cases, the songwriters may also be the musicians. But, in many, many cases, it is not. I was talking about royalties to the actual performers. They get nothing from radio play (in the US).

Re: Re: Hm...

Re: Hm...

I agree that the provision of a link to the BMI royalty page is laudable, however, bear in mind that the page describes the royalties paid to BMI, not the musicians. BMI will take those royalties and apportion them to the songwriters and publishers.

The musicians themselves would only receive royalties for radio broadcast of their performances from their label, not BMI, and only if specified in the terms of their contracts. Mr Masnick may be embellishing to say that no royalties reach musicians, but the BMI collection process does not preclude the possibility (and my understanding is that musicians typically do not receive royalties for airplay).

Re: Re:

I think his mom left him there and he grew up by the trash Hollywood feeds him, LOL.

Tell you one thing: We pirates will continue to live long after Hollywood CEOs are resurrected as part of the Necron Race.

Troll all you want, the only way to kill piracy is to either steal their market by presenting products in the easiest way possible for us, OR legalize piracy by trashing copyright. Fighting us by adding more restrictions will only raise our game and a time will come that we will become nigh invulnerable.

We are human and we know how hard it is to earn every coin we pay the entertainment industry when we go for the legal alternative.

But right now that industry has grown some f**king greedy pigs that demands more for the same content we get for less years ago.

It's like oil price hikes. Without real scarcity!

So Hollywood should choose: Either fight us and die trying. Or adhere to our demands and evolve. When you are selling something you do not listen to your own selfish whims, you listen to your customer's selfish whims. Basic business rule.

Superior vs illegal

The fact that so many people turn to piracy *despite it being illegal* is a great indication of just how superior a product it is. Some of that is no doubt price, but there are many other advantages that make the illegality worth the risk.

Re: Superior vs illegal

I can tell you there are MANY advantages of using pirated things. Back when I used windows XP I had a bought copy of it but I also had some I had downloaded. The funny thing was that the downloaded version was more stable and gave me less trouble. Turns out the "Filthy Pirates" in removing the stupid DRM actually made the OS more reliable while they were at it.

Re: Preferrable

*WHOOSH*

Mike is saying that providing what your customers want instead of holding it back for artificial reasons when others WILL provide it is a piss poor business model. YOU will miss possible sales. Concerning what you do not want the customer to do over if the customer will enjoy it is what drives people to piracy.

And Let's Discuss the REAL Issue

In the Golden Days of Old, it was very, very, very hard to make a good copy of a book/song/movie/other IP. Companies put a lot of effort into making "good" copies. As a consequence of that, something was done exactly 1 time and many many copies of the recording were sold. At first, the only "theatrical" copies were made. Everyone had to go to the "movie theater" to see the show. Or, a physical book had to be purchased. When the art of reproduction and especially high quality reproduction was invented. First, home entertainment started to include seeing movies. TV allowed movies into the home. Then the VCR did it. Then the DVD did it again. The studios raked in the profits. However; technological advances did not stop. At first, even mass produced DVDs were expensive. If memory serves, when home DVD movies were first available, the DVD blanks were $5.00 to $7.00 each. So, DVD versions of movies were $20.00 each. When the cost of the blank became $0.25 at a retail store, the DVD version of the movies were still $20.00. The original excuse for the high price was that the higher quality media cost so much more than a VCR tape. But, the cost of the movie never came down when the cost of the blank came down. The studios seem to think that everyone is stupid and that they don't realize that the economics of making a copy has also changed.

The reality of economics (don't argue with me about this, read the economics textbooks), is that the price of a mass produced item such as a copy of a movie will naturally approach zero. The movie studios just don't want to believe it or accept it. They want to be able to charge over and over and over again just to be able to see the one time a performance was recorded in some cases, many years ago. Once big example that comes to mind is The Wizard of Oz. It was recorded a LONG time ago. If a copy is made, everybody still wants to get paid AGAIN. I've got the wrong job. When I do my job, I get paid once to do it. I don't get paid every time someone uses it. Yet, the movie studios do and to top it all off, they don't even bother to pay the people they are supposed to pay (again) for a performance that was done long ago. What a great deal if you can get it.

Re: And Let's Discuss the REAL Issue

"The reality of economics (don't argue with me about this, read the economics textbooks), is that the price of a mass produced item such as a copy of a movie will naturally approach zero."

Sorry, but that has already been disproved over and over again, because Marshall models assume that the production of a single additional widget represent all or almost all of the cost of that unit. It does not at all consider the up front costs in creating that item.

If a movie costs 100 million to make, and you make 100 million copies to sell, you still have to charge $1 plus whatever your distribution costs just to break even. Since the marketplace is NOT infinite (far from it), there is no point where the retail price of a movie should approach zero, even in the most basic economic terms.

Even if you go with pure "supply demand" pricing, when that price falls below the distributed costs of the producing the movie, the price is no longer sustainable from the producer side, and thus all the demand cannot drive the price to zero - the production of the product will not occur to start with.

"When I do my job, I get paid once to do it. I don't get paid every time someone uses it. "

Yes, but that is because you get paid FULLY for your job up front. You don't get 1/1000 of a cent for each use, and have to wait years to actually collect your minimum wage salary. So trying to compare your work for hire to licensing of a movie isn't exactly fair.

Why not compare it to renting a hotel room? I mean, once you have paid for one night, shouldn't you just be able to stay as long as you want? You paid a night, right?

Re: Re: And Let's Discuss the REAL Issue

Quote:

If a movie costs 100 million to make, and you make 100 million copies to sell, you still have to charge $1 plus whatever your distribution costs just to break even. Since the marketplace is NOT infinite (far from it), there is no point where the retail price of a movie should approach zero, even in the most basic economic terms.

Can you explain how Red Hat is becoming the first billion dollar company please?

Or how Arduino is capable of being a multi million dollar company, or how McDonalds is able to survive since they can't stop others from selling renamed Big Mac's and Fries to others?

Your BS is just unbelievable.

If others can copy your product the reasanoble thing to do is to compete against it offering superior service and goods, not try to exclude everybody else and them some more and even try to create a fertile environment for authoritarian tendencies to take hold.

Re: Re: Re: Re: And Let's Discuss the REAL Issue

Provide a collection that is ever expanding and then offer to maintain that collection for a price. You know, something like subscription services such as Netflix, instead of doing everything possible to drive those services out of business.

In fact, you could even put in a premium tier that involves downloads as well as streaming. I highly doubt that would be construed as unreasonable.

Just, make sure that anything and everything you provide is as easy and painless to work with as possible. Red hat is charging for ease of use, after all. Linux would be there with or without them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: And Let's Discuss the REAL Issue

The entire point of the article you're commenting on is that excusing piracy is irrelevant. Piracy happens whether it's right or not. If that means that people won't be able to get rich making music then that's unfortunate, but so far we haven't been able to find a solution to piracy that adequately protects the rest of the Internet. People can either try to make money in this environment or they can give up on making money in it, but whining about how they don't like the environment isn't a sustainable business model.

Re: Re: And Let's Discuss the REAL Issue

"If a movie costs 100 million to make, and you make 100 million copies to sell, you still have to charge $1 plus whatever your distribution costs just to break even. Since the marketplace is NOT infinite (far from it), there is no point where the retail price of a movie should approach zero, even in the most basic economic terms."

What happens once the costs of the movie have been recouped? Wouldn't you say that after that the cost will naturally approach zero?

- I went to the cinema (back in the 70ies) to see Star Wars - twice.
- I bought the VCR.
- I went to the cinema (back in the 90ies) to see the special edition of Episode IV a New Hope aka Star Wars.
- I bought the VCR of the special edition.
- When it - finally - came out, I bought the DVD (of the special edition).

That really was the point where I had to say - now I have paid enough to George for the same thing in an different package all over again.

- I didn't buy the re-release of the special edition including the original edition.
- I didn't buy the blu-ray.
- I won't go to the cinema to see a 3d-version of it.

Enough. Is. Enough.

Once the production costs - even including a "reasonable" profit - have been recouped, how can anyone claim moral high ground that they are still entitled to get paid - again?

"Yes, but that is because you get paid FULLY for your job up front. You don't get 1/1000 of a cent for each use, and have to wait years to actually collect your minimum wage salary. So trying to compare your work for hire to licensing of a movie isn't exactly fair."

Then change the friggin' financing procedure - and do it like kickstarter! Get paid up front!

If George Lucas joined Kickstarter and said "Look, I'm going to make Star Wars VII - Han and Leias escape from retirement home, but I want 300 million dollars up front to produce it. Anyone contributing at least 10 dollars will get a digital copy of the movie" - you can bet he'd make the money within DAYS!

Re: And Let's Discuss the REAL Issue

Do you know what a contract is and what happens when an actor signs one with a studio? You probably don't. If you did, you may have realize that it all depends on what the contract said when the actor signed it. DUH.

Garrote, anyone?

I just want to throttle the next person who says that. Clearly they are not musicians, writers, or artists.

I am all three, made a living at two of them. Have a day job now. So what do I do almost every night? - I make music or whatever. Then I give it away (day job).

Freakin idiots. Grrrr! Real musicians make music, regardless. They can't help it. People who create just do it. Is it useful or marketable? Who cares. (Read any NCIS fan fiction lately? Really, it's there. Not my bag but it's still creative.)

I think the real problem with the folks who push all this idiotic legislation and spout lame arguments is that not one of them has a single creative atom in their body, so they are genetically incapable of "getting it" and therefore are relegated to parasitic relations with those who do create. Which, btw, is not at all creative. /rant

Re: Garrote, anyone?

"Freakin idiots. Grrrr! Real musicians make music, regardless."

Grrrr! Freaking idiot. Don't you realize that, if a musician has to spend their time working a McJob to pay the bills, that their time isn't spent writing new music or performing for people? Don't you realize that one of the great luxuries of the music industry is that musicians can make enough to be able to JUST be musicians? That song writers can make enough just to be song writers, and so on? it's called opportunity cost, and understanding it will make you understand that, when the money goes away from a creative industry, so does much (but not all) of the time for musicians to be creative.

Re: Re: Garrote, anyone?

Most musicians already have to spend their time working at McJob to pay the bills. Not everyone can be U2.
So do most 'actors' and the rest of the other entertainment industry. If anything, the Internet provides far better returns, so they don't have to spend as much time working other jobs to pay the bills.

Re: Re: Garrote, anyone?

Don't you realize that, if a musician has to spend their time working a McJob to pay the bills, that their time isn't spent writing new music or performing for people?

Are you seriously so naive as to believe that "professional" musicians spend 40 hours a week, 8 hours a day writing and practicing? Touring may be rigorous, but they don't do that all year either...and if the band members have day jobs, they don't *have* to tour in the first place.

Seriously, how often do you think most major label bands practice? Do most of them even do it once a week? The guys in Metallica apparently barely even see each other in the years between albums and tours.

VerBruggen responds by insisting that piracy is wrong. He’s right, but this doesn’t get him as far as he thinks it does.

Irregardless, as someone who used to be a very anti-piracy/pro-copyright advocate I can attest that when you club me over the head, treat me poorly, and attempt to restrict my rights as well, in your efforts to combat this perceived wrong, you are eventually going to lose my active support.

When you club me over the head, treat me poorly, and attempt to further violate my rights in your efforts to combat this perceived wrong, because I am now not actively supporting you, eventually I will actively oppose you.

When you club me over the head, treat me poorly, and attempt to even further restrict my rights, in your attempt to combat this perceived wrong, because I am now actively opposing you, then I will eventually actively support those you are attempting to combat.

Simply because THEY are not trying to club me over the head, treat me poorly, or trying to restrict my rights at every given opportunity.

Presenting an argument that something is morally wrong, while engaging in behavior that is far more morally reprehensible to many people is NOT going to get you a lot of support.

Moreover, in no other industry do we allow consumers to force prices down by taking products for free whenever they, personally, think the legal versions are too expensive or inconvenient.

As Mike has already pointed out, "take" is the wrong verb.

But beyond that: no other industry produces products that are infinitely copyable for free. It seems that some writers STILL do not grasp that bits are different from bushels of peaches or cars or boxes of bolts.

(Also, no other industry had a vast, global promotional and distribution network built for it at zero cost, yet is apparently stupid, selfish, and short-sighted enough to try to shut this incredible gift down.)

Re: Re: Re:

This argument is pointless. One side defines theft as getting something without paying for it, the other defines theft as relieving someone else of something they own, and both sides think the other is at best splitting hairs and at worst playing word games when they argue. Let's just call it thefringement and move on to something that people might actually change their minds about.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Rather, there is no reason to consider the word take, as we have more precise words at our disposal. Illegal/unlicensed copying retains its meaning even without context and infringement and copying come very close to doing so. Theft, on the other hand, is clearly not precise to the discussion, and that one side insists on its use over more precise wording heavily suggests equivocation.

While we are on the topic of fallacious arguments, I find it quite humorous that there is an informal fallacy which directly address the very notion of intellectual property:

Reification - A fallacy of ambiguity where an abstraction or an idea is treated as a tangible thing.

Obviously the debate here is whether or not this is a valid fallacy, so it is no proof. I just find it fun.

Re: Re:

Should is debatable here, take is not. Take implies that the thing that has been taken is no longer where it was. Copy is the word you are looking for. It does not have the same connotations as take, which is likely why you are opposed to using it.

However, the simple fact that one has to adapt a words definition to link the connotations you want to the activity suggests that the true nature of the activity is not as you describe. If copying really was such a horrible thing, there would be no need for you to label people pirates and assert that they steal things. If it was wrong, copy would inherent those connotations of its own accord.

It hasn't.

Instead, what is really going on is that copyright has become increasingly complicated. Such a bloat is the sign of a flawed system. Any engineer worth his salt will be more than willing to inform you that the problem in any system that fights with you is a design flaw and that the system needs to be reworked. Usually, though not always, these flaws are due to an assumption about the nature of the problem.

The content creators built the system they and their woes are their responsibility to solve. It is only the governments problem so far as those parts of the flawed system that have already been encoded into their practices. The government's response ought to be to purge the demonstrably flawed system from their responsibility by rescinding copyright law, which, though they have the ability to, they are not required to provide.

Re: Re:

If you have something you didn't pay for but should have, then you did something wrong. Take isn't the issue, it's a misdirection.
And what about them 'taking' something I already paid for, or not giving me what I paid for? Do you think they are doing something wrong there? What about all the money they take from people 'for the artists' yet the artists never see a penny. The *AA's are far worse than pirates

We do this all the time "she was dressed like a slut that's why she was raped" "don't stand up to the mugger just give in and let him take you money" "run from your home invader your house is not your castle (at least here in NY)"

Re:

Agreed!

The entertainment industry should stop accusing consumers of being criminals all the while lobbying for immoral laws that threaten the foundations of democracy and rapping the public every way they can.

Re:

In Texas anyone who doesn't defend their home is a pussy and the law reflects this, but I'm pretty sure that even here people aren't allowed to put active land mines in their front yard. Protecting your property is all well and good, but you need to be reasonable about it, and a system that tears up your lawn and doesn't leave a corpse is incredibly unreasonable.

LOL at Hollywood and copy protection schemes.
Macrovision- Defeated.
Encryption- Defeated.
ArCCos- Defeated.
Ripguard- Defeated.
Other fancy-pants protection schemes- Defeated.
Week after week, they keep releasing DVDs with some form of "protection" that is defeated almost immediately. They don't seem to get it: they're fighting a losing battle. They will never win.

Re:

One example is the DVD of "Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1". I was able to rent it the day before its official release. I couldn't rip it that night. I got up the next morning, downloaded the latest update of the ripping program I was using, and voila! Another "protection" bites the dust!

Re: Re:

It most certainly would work both ways if the turnaround time for piracy sites was anywhere near as pathetic as copy protection, but that's not the case.
Mediafire (2006): Active.
Frostwire (2004): Active.
Rapidshare (2002): Active.
YouTube (2005): Doing okay.
Ares Galaxy (New, far as I can tell): Feeding on the corpse of Megaupload
The Pirate Bay (2003): Yo ho, motherfuckers!

It's ludicrous

What about the person who contributes to the cable bill but 90% of the time never gets to watch their favorite programs and is forced to download them if those programs are not available for streaming? Having already paid the royalties for those programs, is that person not entitled to view the programs? If the Studios feel they are truly losing money to pirating, then why in the wide world do they not move to an affordable streaming model?? Is it just so they won't have something to whine about or because they don't want to open their books so people will see that they don't really have anything to complain about???

There is ONE way to eliminate infringement: Eliminate copyright

The thing about copyright infringement that many/all people forget is it is all about consent. It can be summed up with this paraphrase "you can't infringe the willing". The other side of the coin is the need for consent, if you don't need consent you can't infringe (eg fair use).

Therefor, getting rid of copyright would by definition get rid of ALL copyright infringement. There may be no way to eliminate infringement while keeping copyright but we don't have to keep copyright.

However I suspect that right holders (RIAA / MPAA) would consider that the equivalent (worse-than, knowing them) of eliminating rape by removing the requirement for consent.

It is not the same thing at all; they just work the same way.

On a more realistic level, expanding 'fair use' (no consent required) to include personal & private copying, similar to the Netherlands, would probably eliminate heaps and heaps of infringement. My guess 98 to 99.999%.

Man, I am so sick of these entitled jerks calling other people entitled. The hypocrisy is nauseating.
Why did everyone suddenly start using the word "entitled" pejoratively, anyway? Feels like that increased tenfold during the last couple of months.

They created a monster now its biteing them in the ass I say fuckem I love it take money from these rich snudy assholes till I see celebs mopping the floor at grandys thats more entertainment than any movie I could see them in. They would say tying your shoes was illegal if it took there money and cushy lifestyle away fuck them time for the PPL of this country to get some of that money. Ps PPL r resilient there's always another way to pirate stuff they can never be stopped. Rrrrrrrrrr !!!!

Hey Mike Masnick, your head is up your ass.

If people can't accept Hollywood doesn't want to give an alternative to obtaining their stuff, people need to stop the whining and crying. But seriously, the more and more I read down this article, the more stupid it got. " It seems silly to be arguing what VerBruggen seems to be arguing, that it's more moral to have everyone worse off with no piracy, than to have everyone better off with some piracy. It just doesn't add up." If "worse off" means them whining and complaining like little children and that's the worse off they are, then who the hell cares? If your reason for pirating is to get Hollywood to give you an alternative like digital downloading, you're NOT going to get it. Plain and simple. That's a dumbass way to get something you want.

"The problem here is easy to spot. It's in the word "take." That's not what's happening here. The truth is that, as in every other industry, consumers force down prices by finding "a superior alternative" as he suggested earlier. Taking implies something is directly taken from the creator and they no longer have it. That's simply not true." - His perception of take is asinine. When the man said take, he meant... MONEY. You pirate, you're pretty much taking money out of someone's pocket. You may not actually have the money but the principle is, whoever profits from you actually buying the movie no longer profits when you illegally obtain it.

And then he uses the term "free market" WAY TOO loosely. I just want to come across this article to slap the shit out of this moron. The official definition of free market is: An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. - No where does he use it in the way it actually means. I mean, the moron said "non-excludable goods is a price restriction on a free market". Really? Not obtaining a digital version to download is restricting a price of something that doesn't exist? Can this dipshit get any more stupid?

"If VerBruggen is arguing that the only proper solution is the one that "eliminates" infringement, well, then he's living in a fantasy land, because no such solution exists." - The same can be said about terrorism, moron! But then again, terrorism CAN be eliminated because if we don't eliminate it, terrorism will continue to exist and actually increase and harm other people. This example is about principle about taking something on to eliminate it when it seems to continue and get worse/or not stop.

Remember when I asked that question about his intelligence? Yes, he CAN get more stupid: "I mean, why not compare Spotify to radio? In some ways, that may be more comparable. In the US, musicians get paid a big fat nothing for radio plays. Yet, somehow, it's been pretty damn important for artists to get on radio. Because it helps them make money elsewhere." - PEOPLE CAN'T ILLEGALLY DOWNLOAD MUSIC FROM THE RADIO UNLESS THEY USE SOMETHING THAT RECORDS IT EXTERNALLY AND THE QUALITY USUALLY SUCKS AND NO ONE WANTS IT! And you can't use the excuse of digital radio because the article writer simply isn't talking about it nor referring to it when he compared the two, so no one can say any smart ass thing about it to back up this dipshit.

"Again, he's looking at one small aspect of the music business in isolation: how much is spent on recorded music. But he leaves out every other aspect of the music business -- including things like live -- which has grown at an incredible rate over the same time. More importantly, he leaves out that artists earn a larger chunk of revenue from live than they do from recorded music sales -- most of which go to the labels, not the artists. Why focus on that anyway?" Because we're talking about illegally downloading and pirating music and not how there's a problem with live performances? Obviously if artists are doing A LOT of live performances, they're making up for the loss of money from their pirated music. This kid is a moron, through and through.

"Again, he's looking at one small aspect of the music business in isolation: how much is spent on recorded music. But he leaves out every other aspect of the music business -- including things like live -- which has grown at an incredible rate over the same time. More importantly, he leaves out that artists earn a larger chunk of revenue from live than they do from recorded music sales -- most of which go to the labels, not the artists. Why focus on that anyway?" - That's because people who pirate are causing them to create more content to make up for content they lose. Much like why artists tour a hell of a lot more so they can make some money from live performances.

"Finally, many of those artists who sold less than 1000 albums would have made a big fat $0 under the old system, because no major label would have bothered with them and they wouldn't have had any other outlet. Aren't we all (including, most importantly, the musicians) better off in a world where a whole bunch of artists get to make something rather than nothing?" - THEY HAD TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM SO ARTISTS COULD MAKE MONEY INSTEAD OF NOTHING DUE TO PIRACY, DUMBASS.

"If law enforcement doesn't work, how is this possibly a law enforcement problem? " - Just because it doesn't work doesn't mean it's not their problem. They just need a better strategy to combat it. And by that comment, this jackass knows nothing about law enforcement nor how to combat anything.

Because his moron knows hardly jack shit about a lot of what he wrote about, this article is entirely opinionated and entirely unintelligent.

Re: Hey Mike Masnick, your head is up your ass.

Re: Hey Mike Masnick, your head is up your ass.

The same can be said about terrorism, moron! But then again, terrorism CAN be eliminated because if we don't eliminate it, terrorism will continue to exist and actually increase and harm other people. This example is about principle about taking something on to eliminate it when it seems to continue and get worse/or not stop.

Unless you have access to magical powers that are fueled by your emotions, your fears don't provide any means of combating terrorism. Attempts to eliminate terrorism, like infringement, have tended only to validate the claims of the terrorist and exacerbate the problem. Clearly our methodology is wrong on both accounts.

That's because people who pirate are causing them to create more content to make up for content they lose. Much like why artists tour a hell of a lot more so they can make some money from live performances.

Copyright exists to encourage the creation of content. If ignoring copyright is leading to greater amounts of content, we have no need for copyright.

Re: Hey Mike Masnick, your head is up your ass.

You are correct, this is one argument Mike never seems to want to take on.

If the movie industry (or music industry or whoever) is leaving so much money on the table, and is doing such a shit job, then why is nobody else coming in to replace them doing the good job?

Probably because there isn't any more in it. Those who try to do it cheaply fail because nobody wants their crap content (they want the Hollywood stuff), and those with the Hollywood content have figured out there isn't much money in selling hoodies and miniputt games.

Mike, how about you address that simple point: Why if there is this huge untapped market is nobody there?

Re: Re: Hey Mike Masnick, your head is up your ass.

If you're talking about making money by selling stuff related to your content, Hasbro's properties seem to work like that. Shows such as Transformers and My Little Pony exist mostly to facilitate sales of a toy line or game, not to be profitable on their own, at least judging by last year's Q3 financial report, and the incredibly low rate at which infringing content is removed indicates that they're doing just enough to be allowed to keep their IP. Pokemon and Hello Kitty have operated roughly like this for as long as I can remember. There are countless other shows that exist to sell merchandise, and if the distribution of such shows is restricted just for being illegal then that's a mistake on the part of the rights holder.

I'm not sure if no one's ever thought to do that to adults or they did and children are just more susceptible, but such a market exists.

So, what is the product?

If "pirate" sites have a better product, even though they have the same content (and possibly at worse quality), then the content isn't the product.

The product is access to the content. Preferably convenient and timely access.

Back when the only media for content were physical, it was much harder to see the distinction. Physical scarcity could keep the price up and competition down.

Now everybody can see that the content isn't naturally scarce. If you can release digitally anywhere in he world, you can release everywhere. And people can see when prices are higher than reasonable (digital content costing the same as physical is a dead give-away).

Most people realize that they are willing to pay more for convenient and timely access - but also that they don't give a rat's ass about companies who won't provide that.

I would most certainly pay for digital copies that are legal if they weren't filled with DRM bullshit. If they provided their own version of TPB I would definitely use it. This would entail faster downloads and much better quality videos/songs. TPB is not a perfect system. Downloads are limited to whether or not other individuals are streaming them. There is no server you download from and so even a small file could take days or even weeks to download. Most if not all people would choose a legal alternative, IF it wasn't filled with all of the DRM bullshit it is now. One idea: have an account you can access online where you can access a library of movies/songs from any computer and stream them like netflix but it's your own personal collection of movies that you have purchased. This is much more advantageous than TPB and it took me five seconds to come up with it.

To who ever said "Lobbying is a GOOD thing"... Maybe for the rich. In fact it's great for the rich. It means they can buy the law. If our wealth was even remotely evenly distributed I would agree that lobbying is good but considering the gap between upper and middle class, lobbying is terrible. Money should not factor into whether or not something is made a law. Just because a millionaire wants a bill passed or a certain politician elected doesn't mean that they should be but that's exactly what happens. Lobbying makes a poor mans voice worthless and a rich mans voice unstoppable and I really don't think that was the principles our government was founded on.

"No, did I say the fight against piracy should be modeled after the war on drugs? All I said is that they similar goals, which is to limit the availability of the illegal product to the casual user, to drive it's use underground, and to make it less of a blight on society."

Right but since the point of the war on drugs was to limit the amount of drug users and it has done the opposite, you can see why people find your analogy laughable. Also it's funny that you consider drugs a "blight" on society when alcohol and tobacco (still drugs but we don't call them that because we want the word drugs to sound evil) kill far more people than any other drugs? Just look at the number of people with DUIs in this country. It's funny that I can go to jail for sitting in my house smoking a plant and not bothering anyone, while these people knowingly risk their life and everyone elses on the road and get a $10,000 fine and that's it. The war on drugs is a joke. The government is not our parent and they have no right to act as one. How can we be the land of the free when we allow our government to tell us what we can and can't do with our own bodies. With this logic we should put all Americans on a specific diet and outlaw alcohol and tobacco as well. People like to call cannabis dangerous even though you can not OD on it and so there is a limit to how high you can get. Also how many times do you hear about drunk men beating their wives or children and then compare it to the number of stoned men who do this, what is it like 1,000,000 to 0? You call me a criminal when all I'm doing is using a different drug than the rest of the country. What harm do I do to the country as a cannabis smoker? If I pay my taxes and work hard at my job who are you to say what I can and can't do to my own body in the privacy of my home. It's pathetic how we all say we love freedom and claim we would die for it and at the same time around 50% of our country wants to tell the other half what they are allowed to do in their free time, when it really is none of their business because it doesn't affect them AT ALL.

Now please tell me how it makes me unmotivated and is bad for my lungs and all the other bullshit people say that is really just a list of things that are all personal consequences and are remarkably similar to the risks of our legal drugs: tobacco and alcohol. Oh and then say how it makes me stupid but then defend alcohol, the magic elixer that aides people in making bad choices like having unprotected sex and driving drunk.

Just to be clear I am not against alcohol or tobacco being legal. I merely wish to point out the hypocrisy of our definition of what a dangerous drug is.

application of the word "Pirate" itself is hyperbole

The very use of the word "pirate" is meant to invoke emotions of revulsion, fear and disgust in any 'decent' law-abiding person. After all, 'pirates' rape, pillage and plunder! They are filthy, unrepentant criminals who smell bad, have bad teeth, no morals and are a danger to decent people, goods and trade. They are inherently wicked thieves.

The industries (not limited to MPAA/RIAA) have employed this word for one reason, and one reason only: subliminal suggestion/emotional manipulation because their claims do not pass a logic test and they don't want to overhaul their business model and adapt to reality. So relying on the negative connotation of the epithet is their only hope of coercing the general public to not go against them.

It is similar to using the term 'child rapist' for some 18-year old who had sex with his 17-year old girlfriend (against US federal law which states that the AOC = 18). While one might say, "the over-reach in the scope of that law is pretty idiotic" no one is going to say, "I'm PRO child-rape! Adults should be able to rape any children they want with no consequences, yay!" And while someone might defend the teen who did what teens do, who's going to defend a "child-rapist"?? They are, after all, a child-rapist, scum of the earth, an inhuman monster!! With that said, politicians citing figures about the 'alarming increase in child rapes' (conveniently not mentioning that a large source of those new cases are teen-teen consensual sex due to the overly broad scope of the existing law) certainly helps the public get on board with more draconian laws which criminalize more and more behaviors but do not do anything to stop them. No old law or new law is going to stop teens from having sex.

Even though clearly rape laws are obviously not inherently a bad thing, there is a limit to their scope of usefulness and appropriateness. The same is true for copyright and digital content laws. When that tipping-point is reached they become idiotic and harmful. But politicians and industries use these emotional-trigger words to ensure public and political support for their otherwise untenable positions, and ensure that 'decent' people cannot go against them without looking like a 'bad' person.

Simple psychology 101: people make decisions based on emotion not logic, so using terminology that has a strong emotional connotation ensures support for your position no matter how illogical or obviously fallacious it actually is.

This is not to compare rape with downloading digital content - it is to compare emotionally-loaded epithets with reality. The example of rape is used specifically because of the immediate, intense instinctual emotional reaction it invokes. And this is the same reason the industries use the term "pirate."

If you were to publicly oppose a new overly broad expansion of existing rape laws, you're automatically "pro-rape." If you oppose the existing copyright restrictions and business models of entertainment industry and new laws to limit access to content, then you are automatically "pro-piracy/pro-THEFT." It works, and it works very well.

As has been said before, if someone wants the content, they will get it, laws or no laws. And most people will buy a hard-copy of a dvd or book if it's good and at a fair price. Most people, even with the advent of Kindle, etc., are not going to read a 700 page book on a screen.

It's the business model that needs to change, not more draconian laws passed. In the digital age, business models need to adapt or those businesses will fail.

Better to

If piracy is to be stopped, then might as well stop and ban smoking, alcohols and bad drugs as well as politics.

These people are seriously asking for the impossible. I mean, to stop piracy? This is how I view life.
As long as I get money from those who buy the albums, go to cinemas, buy the DVDs or whatever and have enough for food, clothing and shelter, I would not really care about those "pirates". Seriously, it is just a waste of time to bother even trying to stop piracy while in turn, it is also impossible to get these SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, PCIPA and whatever nonsense to stop as well.

As a result, what do we get? An endless war or battle between the government and people. The moment politics or piracy gets into our lives, you might as well just shake your heads and either live on and do not care for either side or waste your time supporting whichever sides you are comfortable with.

Generally after get age above 50-55 people lost their mental balance due to some health or family problems. In this condition relative and family members do help only a limit and after it man get alone. An assisted living centre is good option for it. Assisted living centre provide home health care, residential and mental health service.